Budget-Exempt Replacement Parts at the $2000 Challenge

In reply to SVreX :

Right, so nothing I said was untrue as you claimed, and I can be done here.

In reply to SVreX : Excellent point. Some people race and attend racing events with different ideas.  

One of the things I really hated at SCCA events was the over focus on rules.  Oh I understand and support well thought out rules about safety.  But fun events should be about fun. Not every last sentence and coma in a rule book.  

If I show up with a reasonably safe car just let me run. If I’m too fast put me with faster cars.  If I’m too slow put me with those, rules be darned.  At timed events, just let me run.  If I’m outside the spirit of the event I don’t get a trophy or someone else gets the trophy.  

BTW, there has always been a firewall rule. Prior to this year, it was a safety rule which was incorporated into the rules by reference. The rules said we had to abide by the NHRA safety rules, and these included a firewall. 

The only thing that has changed is that the new rules now include a description of  the firewall rule which is very similar to the NHRA description. 

So Jim, you and I agree a firewall should have existed. 

It was a safety rule, and should have been enforced by the tech inspectors. (Not the staff).  Anyone could have protested it (and probably should have). No one did.  The rule was not ignored by the staff.  It was overlooked by the tech inspectors, and the protest rule was ignored by the competitors, including you and me.

If Alan had been injured, it would have been partly our fault.

But safety enforcement is the tech inspectors responsibility, not the staff.

In reply to Justjim75 :

I like having the pro drivers there, its an option you dont have to use them if you dont want to, in fact there has been several teams in the past that have won or top 3 the autox without using them. Theres no rule about who drives your car so a team can bring in there own ringer, having pros there just makes things fair.  Also the feedback from the pro is a huge help.

A big goal of mine is to one year not need the pro and every year I get closer to not needing them.

SVreX said:

The rule was not ignored by the staff.  It was overlooked by the tech inspectors, and the protest rule was ignored by the competitors, including you and me.

If Alan had been injured, it would have been partly our fault.

But safety enforcement is the tech inspectors responsibility, not the staff.

 

I’m going to have to disagree on something seemingly minor, but very important.  Everyone is responsible for their own safety, no one else.  If you get in a car without a firewall and something bad happens to you, then it’s on you not spectators.  

Jim, I hear your complaints, but don't hear what you'd like us to do differently.

I failed the van under discussion the first time it rolled through tech. The team then put it back through tech inspection when the track staff was checking cars, and from my understanding they made an argument that their firewall fit the rules in effect at the time. Their car was approved by that inspector. He will not be checking cars at the $2000 Challenge this year. 

The rules now include the aforementioned firewall language, as well as this:

"Entries that fail onsite tech inspection three times in the same day will be disqualified."

To discourage people from trying to get lucky with their inspector.

Regarding Georgia Tech's exhaust: It fit the letter of the rules last year, and the team received no protests. My memory is a tad fuzzy, but I believe I explained this to you and then asked if you would like to file a protest when you asked about it. The exhaust rule has also been clarified, but not changed.

In reply to AnthonyGS :

I didn’t say responsible for safety. I said responsible for safety enforcement. 

Yes, we all need to watch out for ourselves. 

But the definition of responsible is “having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role”. That’s the tech inspectors. 

I said that in response to the suggestion that the staff had failed to do their job.  I think they did a super job!

Justjim75 said:

I was asked to explain my statement, so I gave 2 specific examples of how the rules, as they were written prior to the $2018 event, were not followed, and the staff was well aware of the participants plans before the event.  I was a first timer myself and was very much disappointed to find out after following every rule to the letter, others were allowed to "avoid" them.  I was also disappointed to find that most "racers" were "competing" with times earned by a borrowed pro driver.  To never drive your car seems to me like it's not at all in the spirit of "let's go racing for two grand!"

People considering the Challenge should be made well aware that the rules have been broken, as they were written, in the past, with full knowledge of the event staff and that they will not necessarily be racing against other home builders and drivers, but against pro drivers, so that they can decide whether that's the kind of event they want to pour blood, sweat, tears, and money into.

You're missing an important part of the challenge though. 

The challenge is an editorial event first, and a race second. It is to showcase what an inventive person can do with two grand and a loose set of guidelines to follow. In the 4 years I've been a member here, I've seen 4 similar but different rule sets. The event is still evolving as people want to push the envelope and we try new things.

The big issue last year was a 2x4 body member pointed at the driver of the car, and an exposed turbo in the passenger seat. Guess what rules specifically stated those weren't options in 2018?

There are a multitude of challenge cars that are no longer eligible as years go on and rules evolve, but the spirit of the event has stayed true, and that is to produce top notch and original magazine content, under the theme of a vehicle challenge. Who drives what is, and has been, public knowledge and available.

It's not like people have to pay for the pro drivers, they're available to all, and it actually helps even out the comparisons between vehicles by having a consistent driver whose familiar with the course. 

Alternator, PS pump, ECU, or the likes, then sure. Break an NA engine after you hang a eBay GT37 turbo on it? No way. Normal items that just break with no foresight into a problem then I am all for this rule. Something that breaks because of abuse or hard use beyond what it was designed for should not be acceptable in this rule. Would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis

In reply to RevRico :

I like what you say about the the rules evolving. The main key about this event is that it’s done on a modest budget of $2000 X dollars 

by changing the rules while keeping the basic premise innovation isn’t stifled. 

In reply to ErikTheSwede :

Parts may not be replaced at no budget impact under this rule if they were broken or heavily degraded when the car was purchased, or if the competitor knew failure was likely due to modifications.

Since this thread seems to be alive and well with discussion I'll throw out a case study from my challenge car to see if there is any agreement on the application of this rule.  
Here's the real scenario:  I purchased the challenge car in 2002 to use as my primary vehicle (I hadn't even yet been introduced to GRM).  At the time of purchased it was mechanically sound except the engine wasn't too healthy.  Lucky for me after purchase I realized that it had red koni adjustable shocks in good working order.  In 2013 I discovered autocross and PCA time trials and began attending a few events per year.  In 2016, 14 years, >50k miles and quite a few race events after the purchase I decided to enter it in the challenge.  Shortly before the event I noticed some handling issues developing. One each front and rear shock had gone bad and a couple of tierod ends were now bad.  I bought the cheapest tierod ends and KYB shocks that I could from Rock Auto to replace them.  (Set of 4 shocks were $75 and the tierods were $25.)  At the time I really didn't think these standard wear and tear items should count against the budget since I was just putting it back to the good operating order it was in at time of purchase 14 years prior, but being a first time challenger and no specific rule to guide me, I went ahead and included them in my budget. (ironically, I ran out of time and only installed two of the shocks, but all 4 were in the budget sheet)

So what do you all think?  Would exempting these items be an appropriate application of the new rule?

In reply to bigben :

My feeling is no. When you made the decision to Challenge the car it was in a "degraded" state and bringing it back to race condition is part of the $$ game. 

In reply to bigben :

I say it depends on your price. 

If your starting budget price was the price you purchased it for in 2002, the car could reasonably be returned to the condition you bought it in. With used good condition shocks. 

If the starting budget price you utilized was a 2016 FMV based on its further degraded condition, then no. 

However, please note the caveat... it’s not possible to replace shocks with equal condition used shocks.  There is always a difference. Unless you can document that the shocks were brand new when you bought them. 

Before anybody else weighs in here, please read the current rule at 2000challenge.com/rules

In reply to Tom Suddard :

You want us to read the Challenge rules before arguing about them? You must be new here...

In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :

If you can't bring an item back to the as purchased condition then there would be no point in having an "Emergency Repair/Wear and Tear" exemption.  However, I would agree that bringing it back to "race condition" is part of the $$ game if you already made a FMV adjustment to account for the "degraded" state. No double dipping.

In reply to SVreX :

Budget price was the original 2002 purchase price.  

True that performance of one used shock will not match another used shock, for that matter new shocks could have significant variation as well.  Here's my logic on the shock replacement: a good used single adjustable Koni should perform at least as well, if not significantly better, than a new $20 KYB shock.  I'd actually prefer to repair the Koni's but I haven't found any information on DIY rebuilding of koni's and it costs too much to have Koni do it. In my estimation the performance potential is lower with new low end KYBs than used Koni's.

In reply to Tom Suddard :

And yes Tom, I went and read the rules before replying. Err. .ah..well I read some of them, but they were the important ones.

In reply to bigben :

If I understand correctly, to me it seems like you should get 14 years of depreciation on the normal wear items (brakes, shocks, tires, clutch) on your Challenge priced purchase and to replace a broken (after 50k miles) expensive shock with a cheaper parts house one in my mind would fall into the wear and tear clause, but I'm a rookie one timer

Pretty sure Tom is referencing this:

Emergency Repairs/Wear and Tear: 

Maintenance is a reality of vehicle ownership, especially when that vehicle is used for competition. We understand that many $2000 Challenge cars can be unreliable, as a winning entry only needs to run for one autocross run and one drag race. With this in mind, competitors may replace parts that break during other competitions, daily driving, trips to or from the $2000 Challenge and during the $2000 Challenge, with identical or as-close-to-identical-as-possible parts without adding to or subtracting from their budgets. Any parts replaced under this exemption must be listed on the budget sheet as exempt, with an explanation of why this failure was not expected and budgeted for in advance. Parts may not be replaced at no budget impact under this rule if they were broken or heavily degraded when the car was purchased, or if the competitor knew failure was likely due to modifications. In the case of a protest that deals with a part or parts replaced under this rule, a group of nine event attendees will be selected by GRM staff, and they will vote to determine whether the part replaced without budget impact was fairly exempted. 

(bold added for emphasis)

BigBen, I'd say that means your items are exempt, but you will expose yourself to a jury of 9 of your peers who will be the final arbitrators.